User talk:Rhododendrites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
to leave a new message click here

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

List of open access journals[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites, I am new here and wanted to complete the open access list in mathematics. I have checked all these journals but I understand your concern about wikipedia entries for them. I have indeed not checked that. However, please note that the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique has a Wikipedia entry. So, could we add it ?

Best regards, CoupleFromThePast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoupleFromThePast (talkcontribs) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@CoupleFromThePast: Hi and thanks for your efforts to improve the list of open access journals. It is the case on Wikipedia that most lists are not intended to be exhaustive. The "common selection criteria" is more or less standard, and more often than not restricted to those entries which already have Wikipedia articles (as the easiest way to demonstrate notability for the purpose of including on a list). Such is the case for this list. I apologize that I did not verify that all of the ones you provided do not have articles -- I checked a few and made an assumption. I'll go back and check, adding those that do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@CoupleFromThePast: I've re-added Journal of Computational Geometry and Münster Journal of Mathematics. There is also an article for Compositio Mathematica, but it looks like they only have an open access option whereby an author can pay to make just his or her contribution open access (as opposed to an open access journal). I don't see the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique article, but by all means add it if there's an article and it's open access. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


That's quite ridiculous a pretence from you that I did something wrong, when including my artist name in that list of R&B musicians, since I'm a Music Producer, that produced many R&B songs already, and included as a reference on the page that list is at, a link allowing readers to verify by themselves that I'm R&B musician, as they would play tracks on the page I provided as a reference. I didn't create a Wiki page about myself, having seen it not allowed, but I did it right to include my name in that list and provided proof of that... Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? You are the one not making sense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talkcontribs) 15:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@DonyTheGigaStar: I don't think you were intentionally trying to do something wrong and I apologize if I gave you that idea. But there are Wikipedia policies and guidelines which problematize the edit you made that you should be aware of.
Wikipedia doesn't have any lists of every artist in a given genre, but rather lists of artists with Wikipedia articles about them (see WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:CSC, and WP:N for more information about what "notability" means on Wikipedia).
Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? - Wikipedia very rarely considers primary sources to be reliable, even if an artist did have a Wikipedia article about them. reliable secondary sources are indeed required to show that someone is considered to be in a given genre. In other words, Wikipedia cares about what other people say about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. I believe you that you are R&B, but there are people who call themselves all manner of things so we have a policy (based on the core principle of neutral point of view) that we only call someone X if other people call that person X (with rare exception). It can be a pain, I know, but it's one of the things that allows Wikipedia to work at all. While you are not here to add spurious information, thousands of people do so every single day.
Finally, Wikipedia does have strict rules about self-promotion and conflict of interest, which it sounds like you've come across in some capacity. I shouldn't overstate it in this case, though, because like you point out, all you did was add yourself to a list rather than create an autobiography. I shouldn't have chosen promotion as the rationale I provided on your talk page because really the most straightforward reason I reverted was because there was no Wikipedia article for the name you added. I apologize for focusing on that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a R&B Music Producer of great talent. That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. The "notability" page even says that fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter... In my case I don't yet have a Wiki page, and I'm not going to corrupt any for making one appear for me, being not allowed to create one about myself or a product mine. So I provided a link to a page on which readers can play freely, R&B songs I produced, allowing them to verify that those are R&B songs original, produced by me themselves...That wasn't simply self-promotion, it's actually you the one simply making visible your choice of some other(s) having name(s) in that list, when deleting my name and prooving reference from the page, while being spoken of some from "major label" in the list, which supposed to be not seen as a proof of being R&B musician, since a called "major label" may simply be the one intructing someone to pronounce that and that, and act as if being musician, while doing nothing in the production of the music made popular... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talkcontribs) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. -- this is pretty well covered above.
fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter - right. what matters is that you cite multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If you wrote, performed, or produced the source, or if it is in any way connected to you, it's not a valid source for verifying something on Wikipedia as it cannot possibly be neutral. What we'd need are, for example, record reviews in reputable magazines/newspapers/books.
So I provided a link to a page... - while your intent is good, it's still not an appropriate link for Wikipedia
your choice of some other(s) - None of this is my opinion. This is how Wikipedia works. I'd encourage you to read more of the policy pages like those I link to above if you think this is personal. For the list, you just don't have a Wikipedia article. That's required to be added to the list.
spoken of some from "major label" in the list - label is not important. to be included on the list, having an article is the first requirement. sources which say "this artist is R&B" is the secondary requirement. labels, talent, and so on aren't part of what decides it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

new panama radio station[edit]

We are power hip hop 100 panama, a internet radio station in panama city. Our format is hip hop, r&b and reggaeton. We are applying for broadcast license for 100.9FM. Please include us to your list. Any additional information please contact us. gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png


Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

removal without explaining[edit]

not sure how to explain why its removed without clogging the list. your wrong in putting it back. it was removed because these bands are merely an aesthetics of the culture not actual bands of the culture. they dont have the right sound. like saying pop is metal when its pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Hi. So, for context we're talking about List of gothic rock artists, right? As Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, which means that everything on here should be verifiable in reliable sources, and does not permit original research, the only thing that matters for whether a band is on a list of "bands in genre X" is that we cite reliable sources labeling them as such. In other words, that an editor says a band simply is or is not an example of a certain genre matters much less than if a record review, magazine profile, etc. says so. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but really there would have to be a compelling reason involving challenging the sources used to remove them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Julius Evola[edit]

Thanks for the refs parts-I was having trouble finding anything and since I don't know Italian. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: For background, a whole lot of Evola's works were mass PRODed by an IP with no other edits (as I recall) a couple months ago. I hadn't heard of him, but as the PRODs smelled a bit POVish I looked for sources, determined at least a couple could sustain an article, and requested their restoration at WP:REFUND. ...But then kind of forgot until I saw your PRODs today. Articles about several of his other works are in similarly rough shape...we'll see what I have time for before I forget again :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was bored a few days ago and was tying to see articles marked for notability under a certain number of bytes created before on the tool searcher which is how I found them-a few of them I did put up for a AFD. (I also found articles that were stuff like a COI never marked for 9 years, ect!) Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Bay Area Bands[edit]

If you did a little research, you would know that The Overbrook Express played at most Bay Area venues during 1966-1969 including The Ark (Sausalito), The Strait Theater (haight Street), The new Orleans House, The Concord Armory, Long Shoremans Hall, etc etc. Please do not remove my edit. Do some reasearch. The Overbrook Express probably played on the same bill with every major Bay Area band in 1967. mareisland03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: Hi. I think you misunderstand why I removed the band. I believe you that they are a SF band. The issue is that lists of bands on Wikipedia are almost never a list of every band who falls into that category but a list of bands with Wikipedia articles about them who also fit in that category. There are literally thousands of bands from the Bay area. Overbrook Express may be a good band or even an influential band, but please write the The Overbrook Express article before adding them to the list. (I'd also check to make sure they pass the notability criteria for bands here: WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK then, be snoooooty, Im not going to argue the point with you. HOWEVER you are a "snooty, ...its gotta be by the books" azzhole. We played the bay area for 20 years...but that doesnt mean squat to you. Go ahead, be a sanctamoinios jerk. Rich Irwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: The rules I'm explaining are not mine. If I didn't remove the link, someone else would have. There's nothing snooty about it -- it's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a music database and contains only encyclopedic lists. It's nothing personal, I assure you. Having rules about such things is what makes Wikipedia work at all rather than become another Yahoo Directory,, MySpace/FaceBook, and/or all the other sites on the web people use for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd recommend reading up on the core policies and guidelines: WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:NPA. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]


About the italics often words and names in foreign languages are italicized. The French school has its name rendered in French, so I italicize it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: MOS:FOREIGN: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." (Semper fi and modus ponens but not the name of a university). But maybe there's another guideline that contradicts this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that before. It might be a good idea to ask on a talk page. I've been following the assumption that I should be italicizing names of organizations if their names are rendered in a non-English language. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Speaking just from experience writing in journalistic and academic contexts, the approach above is the way that is familiar to me, which is why I would've been surprised if there were a contradictory guideline. I saw the thread you started at WT:MOS and added it to my watchlist just in case. In the meantime, would you mind restoring the unitalicized version? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

About this - In regards to many countries' international schools it's extremely common for them to be in a K-12/maternelle through lycee, etc. configuration, meaning they have senior high school and get automatic presumed notability. This is especially true for American, French, British, and German schools. However I am aware that the Russian embassy schools in Mumbai and Chennai are primary only. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the common outcome regarding schools (based on AfDs in which articles were deleted) is that it doesn't apply to just any school that happens to include high school, but rather to high schools themselves. I will say, however, that I do have a general preference against citing common outcomes as justification in their own right rather than information to be aware of if one is going to nominate such an article for deletion (or, at its rhetorical peak, the basis for a supplementary argument). I digress. Regardless, the list in question has been operating as blue links only for a while now, so I'd request a talk page thread concerning the inclusion criteria prior to adding them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. What I can do with that page is add additional schools after creating their respective articles. It may be good to put in an internal comment saying not to list a school without making sure it has an article that is properly sourced. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks for doing that. I'll add that comment. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC) notability[edit]

You are correct that has not established notability as yet. But please consider that the primary purpose of albunack is improve the quality and quantity of data within the open Musicbrainz database, this primary aim and the aims of MusicBrainz are very much in the spirit of wikipedia so I would hope that this page could be kept as it is essentially a tool for improving open data which must be something Wikipedia would be keen to encourage and would benefit Wikipedia. Ijabz (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ijabz: I do appreciate that it's in the spirit of Wikipedia, but every article subject does have to be notable. Sometimes that means not having an article about a very good website, software, person, organization, etc. It can be frustrating, but it's also the sort of rule that makes it possible to have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The idea is to remove editor judgment/bias from the equation and replace it with a quasi-objective assessment of the extent to which a subject is covered in reliable sources. We defer to the peer-reviewed, edited publications with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (well, at least that's the ideal). This might be a case of "too soon". It may receive press coverage in time, but for now it does not appear to me to be there. In such cases my personal preference for newer articles is to move them to the draft space or to a user page where it can be developed and sources found more gradually. Otherwise it's just a matter of time until someone stumbles upon the page and nominates it for deletion, sorry to say. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Conformity within the presidential infoboxes[edit]

At Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Conformity_within_the_presidential_infoboxes with your comment "Seems to fit with WP:OVERLINK and standard procedure" did you mean to oppose instead of support? Just making sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for checking but I do mean support. WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Okie dokie, I was just making sure. Generally when all someone says is WP:OVERLINK they simply mean it's overlinked. Perhaps you should put the rest in so whoever closes doesn't make the same mistake as me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Tetrapod Zoology on List of blogs[edit]

Hey, I noticed you reverted my addition of Tetrapod Zoology to List of blogs. I thought that, having a section on the author's page, this would be "notable enough" for the list. (Note that I am in no way affiliated with Darren Naish or his blog, except as an occasional reader.) Would you mind commenting on your rationale on the list's talk page? (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Thanks for the message. I didn't notice before that you left the same comment at Talk:List of blogs, so I've just responded there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

This Month in GLAM: April 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting[edit]

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Draft article on Declan Masterson.[edit]

Dear Rhododendrites, Face-smile.svg
Following on from our discussion on 2 March, 2015, I have developed a draft article for Declan Masterson in my user space. My overall approach has been to look at a lot of the information already published online and then doubt everything, in order to force myself to validate what I thought could appear in the article, along with substantiating ref tags.
For example, I have sought to validate statements of his participation to various recordings; in a few cases, his name is absent from the credits published online but since I don't own these recordings, I can't assess whether he was really absent from the recordings themselves, or whether the online credits are incomplete. In those cases, I'd prefer to remove any mention of these recordings from the article, and let another editor add them later on, based on the evidence s/he may have from the recordings' sleeve notes (assuming that the article will ever be published, of course).
I still need to write a bit of prose for some of the sections which are currently empty, but it wouldn't take me very long because there is so little available. For example, I found very few interviews, other than those published in three editions of Folk Roots, of which I have the originals and for which I have already prepared ref tags in the current draft, ready to be appended to the prose I'll be writing.
One of these Folk Roots interviews states that he has performed with John Denver, but I found no other evidence to substantiate that statement; Denver did tour in Ireland but, as far as I am able to ascertain, Masterson's name was never mentioned in association with any of those tours, nor does he seem to have participated in any of Denver's recordings. Therefore, the only ref tags I will have for this 'fact' is its mention in Folk Roots, which I find rather tenuous (even though it complies with WP:THIRDPARTY). Also, and most frustratingly, I could not find his date of birth!
In any case, please would you kindly have a quick look at the draft article in its current state, and then let me know if you think it is worth pursuing the effort of expanding and polishing the existing, draft prose? If you end up concluding that it's a lost cause, then please don't spend too much time on this.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your helpful assistance. Face-smile.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I think it's great you created this. I just took a quick look and will mention a few things that jump out. I can go into more detail or even help out directly later if you want.
  1. It looks like you did a good job of keeping the tone neutral. From what I can tell, this doesn't read like a promotional piece -- which is easy to slip into when working on an article about a musician you like.
  2. There are a few different ways to show that a musician is notable. "Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" applies to any subject, but there's also a more specific set of criteria for bands/musicians. It's not an alternative to finding good sources, but rules of thumb that if someone meets one of these, sources will likely exist so it probably shouldn't be deleted. It's still a gray area, but it looks like there's a good case for #6 on that list: he may have "been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".
  3. His discography shouldn't dominate the page. In such cases it tends to be best to limit the list to major recordings. For example you mention he's played with certain other musicians in the prose, so you probably don't need to list out the various songs he contributed to. In some cases -- especially when many of an artist's recordings are independently notable such that they have their own Wikipedia articles -- we create separate discographies. When it's appropriate to do so is another gray area, but you'd certainly want to establish Masterson's notability first and then wait a while before creating a separate article like that.
  4. Some of the references are kind of problematic. User-generated content like imdb and commercial sites like Barnes and Noble are not typically sources we want. But they're also symptoms of a broader concern: What we want are sources that talk about various aspects of him or his career, not those which simply verify a credit or something's existence. That doesn't mean you should get rid of them -- they can still be useful if reliable -- but the article should rely primarily on articles, interviews, reviews, etc. If an album is mentioned in a review, there's no need to also cite e.g. allmusic to verify the article exists -- we trust that secondary source.
  5. One final thing to keep in mind, although I don't think it's too big of an issue at this point, is the idea of "weight": on Wikipedia, aspects of a subject should be covered in proportion to the coverage of those aspects in the body of available literature about the subject. It most often comes up when, say, someone wants to create a big "criticism" section based on a single negative review when there are 100 positive reviews. But it also applies broadly to just how we cover subjects to make sure we're not promoting/detracting inappropriately.
I hope this helps. Let me know if I'm not being clear about any of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: It looks like I misunderstood. I did not see before that you actually have quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm over-explained things you already know. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Dear friend; Face-smile.svg
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft and also for providing such a thorough list of considerations to keep in mind; I am very grateful!
Before I respond to some of your helpful points and suggestions, thank you also for your closing 'Follow-up' immediately above; it's very considerate of you and I appreciate your sensitivity. Face-smile.svg However, the extent of my experience as a Wiki editor is primarily as a member of the Typo Team, and also mainly in seeking to improve the very wide network of articles relating to Andy Irvine, his many partnerships and his recordings. The fact remains, though, that I have never created an article from scratch about anything other than albums, so this is my first attempt at creating one for a real person and, therefore, all your comments are immensely useful to this 'newbie'. Face-wink.svg
The real challenge I have with the draft article at hand, is the paucity of interviews that deliver the about content that you so cogently mentioned in your point 4. above. In my opinion, this aspect will greatly limit the value of the Masterson article, because so little information is actually available about him for anyone to wikify. OK, the lead makes him sound interesting: he played with some luminaries, he recorded five solo albums, his collaboration discography is impressive, and he was part of the Riverdance band. But that's about it.
I will therefore begin the next phase of edits by working on the easy aspects of your feedback: streamlining the discography by removing albums over which there is uncertainty, and also cleaning up the comments I added alongside most of the albums (like which instrument he played on what recording). I will also review the ref tags and see if some of them are adding much value; if not, I'll probably delete them (and we could always re-instate them later on, if necessary).
Then, I will have a go at finalizing the prose in the sections that are currently empty.
After that, please may I approach you again to review the resulting draft? I would greatly value your advice at that point, on whether to proceed with publication or not. In the former case, it should have become easier to assess what's missing. In the latter case, I won't mind too much because I will have learned a lot from this exercise anyway, even if our encyclopaedia ends up without an article on Declan Masterson.
So, very many thanks for volunteering to remain available for advice; I will contact you again within the next few weeks, as I'll need a bit of time to work on the above changes.
Until then, please know that I find it immensely helpful to be able to submit this draft to someone as knowledgeable about the wiki—and as kind and helpful!—as you. Face-smile.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pdebee: Glad I could help. Pardon this brief reply, but if you leave another message I'd be happy to look at the article again in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Will do. Thanks a lot! Face-smile.svg
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit][edit]

Pardon me: what is the problem with my entry ? Is it miss-placed? I could put it up under the "Positions" since this is the latest and it's not fully addressed. I am new to this.

It's factual and the links are good.

Thank you and regards, Philip Psw808 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. While I don't know that I would disagree with the gist of what you added on the level of principle, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I've responded at the article talk page in case others involved with the page want to weigh in: Talk:National Association of Scholars#Removed funding content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Infobox linking RfC[edit]

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for the heads up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)